Palestinian political leaders are poised to join the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the aim of putting Israel in the dock on war crimes charges, officials said today.

"Israel has left us with no other option," Riad Malki, the Palestinian foreign minister, told reporters after meeting ICC officials in The Hague to discuss the implications of signing the Rome Statute. It would make the Palestinian state a member of the court with the authority to call for an investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Palestinian Authority has asked Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) to sign the accession document before it is formally presented, and officials say they now expect both organisations to agree.

The development came as Palestinian negotiators were due to meet the head of Egyptian military intelligence in Cairo to discuss a permanent ceasefire with Israel, after all sides observed a 72-hour truce that came in to force at 8am local time (0600 BST) on Tuesday.

Hamas launched a salvo of rockets minutes before the truce began, calling it revenge for Israel's "massacres". Israel's anti-missile system shot down one rocket over Jerusalem, police said. Another hit a house in a town near Bethlehem in the West Bank. There were no casualties.

Israeli armour and infantry left Gaza ahead of the truce, and a military spokesman said their main goal of destroying cross-border tunnels had been completed. "Mission accomplished," the military tweeted.

The talks in Cairo follow a month of fighting during which 1,900 Palestinians, mostly civilians, 64 Israeli soldiers, two Israeli civilians and a Thai migrant worker were killed. Officials from Hamas and Islamic Jihad reportedly left Gaza once the truce came into effect via the Rafah border crossing, after receiving assurances from Israel that they would not be targeted. Israeli security officials were expected in the Egyptian capital later on Tuesday or on Wednesday.

Israeli officials warned, however, that Hamas had exaggerated expectations of what it could achieve in the talks. Israel Radio reported that a Palestinian demand for the construction a port and airport in Gaza was not on Egypt's agenda.

The main Palestinian demand is for an end to the seven-year blockade of Gaza, which includes lifting restrictions on the movement of people and goods by opening the border crossings. Others are for the release of prisoners, starting reconstruction and ensuring fishing rights up to 12 nautical miles off Gaza's coast. Israel is insisting on an end to rocket fire and wider "demilitarisation".

Diplomats say they expect the Palestinian plan to join the ICC and set a war crimes investigation in motion to be one of the bargaining chips on the table in Cairo. Palestinian officials claim that, for the first time, they have achieved unity on the issue among the political and armed factions, paving the way for ICC membership.

"I think it is going to happen," Saeb Erekat, a veteran Palestinian diplomat, said. Erekat said he had shown the documentation to Hamas's political leader, Khaled Meshal, a few days ago in Doha. "He asked to study it for a couple of days. There are still some legal aspects and procedures that have to be agreed."

The ICC prosecutor issued a statement on Tuesday stating that the court did not have jurisdiction on Palestinian territory without a formal Palestinian request. Palestinian Authority negotiators have taken a copy of the accession document to ceasefire talks in Cairo in the hope that the Hamas and PIJ representatives will sign it there.

If they do, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, would add his own signature, confirming membership of the ICC. He would then issue a declaration calling for an investigation.

ICC investigators would consequently assess war crimes allegations against all parties to the conflict, including Hamas and PIJ. Jawan Jabarin, a Palestinian human rights activist who has been pushing for ICC membership, said that both groups were prepared to sign because they believed Israel would be the primary target of any investigation.

"I saw the draft letter which they took to Cairo. They are waiting for signature from Hamas and Islamic Jihad and they will get it. We got confirmation. They said they will do it," Jabarin, the director general of Al-Haq, said. He predicted it would happen in "weeks or even quicker".

"They [Hamas and PIJ] believe the size of the crime that the Israelis committed is huge. They feel like they didn't commit crimes, but they say: 'Even if some of our leaders go to court, we will do that. It is part of our responsibility to the victims.' So it is a matter of time, but we are very, very close."

The Israeli foreign ministry declined to comment. Israeli officials believe that any ICC investigation would backfire on the Palestinians, implicating Hamas rather than Israel, and they have predicted that Abbas would not sign the Rome Statute for that reason. The Palestinians became eligible to join the ICC in November 2012, when the UN granted Palestine status as a non-member observer state.

If Abbas proceeds with accession to the ICC, it would represent an act of defiance of western capitals, which have put pressure on him not to join, arguing it would be an impediment to peace negotiations. The UK's foreign office minister, Sayeeda Warsi, resigned on Tuesday because of the government's policy on Gaza, specifically citing her disagreement with British pressure on the Palestinians not to pursue justice through the ICC.

Amnesty International's secretary general, Salil Shetty, has urged the Palestinian leadership to shrug off western pressure.

"They must make good on their words and seize this chance to move towards accountability for countless victims of human rights violations by submitting a declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the ICC without further delay," Shetty said.

The Qassam brigades, the military wing of Hamas, warned in a statement that its camapign would not end until its demands were met. "Our finger is on the trigger," it said. "The enemy's moves will determine the aftermath of the battle."

Ismail Haniyeh, the former Hamas prime minister, issued a statement on Hamas TV saying: "Military victory will lead to the lifting of the siege on the Gaza Strip."

In the lastest in a bitter propaganda war that has accompanied the fighting of the past month, Israel TV Channel 2 reported the military as saying it had killed 900 Palestinian fighters in Gaza, nearly half the 1,867 dead reported by Palestinian officials.Israel Radio said the defence establishment had a list of 600 names of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other fighters killed during Operation Protective Edge.

So sorry, you don't really understand the war crime committed by hamas..

there is no war crime or criminal act by Isarel in striking hamas targets, REGARDLESS if innocent civilians are being used as human shields, if there is a crime it's hamas's responsibility

The entire situation is of hamas's making, hiding inside civilian apartments, schools, UN buildings and hospital and launching rockets next to these location ABSOLVES Israel of any legal responsibility.

And the fact, like it or not, that Israel does have a very well known and respected policy of avoiding civilians as much as possible.

Israel is not violating international law in Gaza - part 1: Principle of DistinctionI have described how Hamas is violating at least 19 principles of international law in the current fighting.

Now, is Israel?

The criticism most often given of Israel's actions is that it is violating the "principle of distinction." The Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol 1, article 52, states it this way:

1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.

2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.Many countries, when they ratified this article, clarified it to ensure that collateral damage is not covered by the first sentence of paragraph 2. So, for example, Canada wrote:It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 52 that ...the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Article is not intended to, nor does it,deal with the question of incidental or collateral damage resulting from an attack directed against a military objective.Italy, Australia, the UK, France and New Zealand added similar language (CIHL II para. 83-91)

Logic dictates that it cannot be otherwise. If these caveats aren't in place, then anyone can make any military target immune from attack placing a civilian there, or placing the target in a house or church or hospital that is still used as such. So, for example, Australia's Defence Force Manual states:The presence of noncombatants in or around a military objective does not change its nature as a military objective. Noncombatants in the vicinity of a military objective must share the danger to which the military objective is exposed.Note that we are not saying that the existence of civilians at a military target can be ignored; that is part of the Proportionality discussion that will be forthcoming. But clearly international law allows the attack on military targets even if there are some civilians there.

Who determines whether something is a military target or not?

It is not reporters, or eyewitnesses, or residents of nearby houses, or human rights organizations. That decision is given to the military commander, based on the best available information at the time.

So, for example, The Military Manual of the Netherlands says that “the definition of ‘military objectives’ implies that it depends on the circumstances of the moment whether an object is a military objective. The definition leaves the necessary freedom of judgement to the commander on the spot."

Sweden's IHL manual states "it is up to the attacker to decide whether the nature, location, purpose or use of the property can admit of its being classified as a military objective and thus as a permissible object of attack. This formulation undeniably gives the military commander great latitude in deciding, but he must also take account of the unintentional damage that may occur. The proportionality rule must always enter into the assessment even though this is not directly stated in the text of Article 52." (para. 335, 338)

The military commander is not only concerned with the safety of the civilians in the area. The commander is also concerned with the safety of his or her own troops. The US Naval Handbook says "Military advantage may involve a variety of considerations, including the security of the attacking force." (para. 339)

Civilian sites can become valid military objectives. So, for example, Australia’s Defence Force Manual lists among military objectives “objects, normally dedicated to civilian purposes, but which are being used for military purposes, e.g. a school house or home which is being used temporarily as a battalion headquarters”. The manual specifies that "For this purpose, 'use' does not necessarily mean occupation. For example, if enemy soldiers use a school building as shelter from attack by direct fire, then they are clearly gaining a military advantage from the school. This means the school becomes a military objective and can be attacked." (para. 687)

Israel's Manual on the Laws of War goes even further to protect civilians: (para 694)A situation may arise where the target changes its appearance from civilian to military or vice versa. For instance, if anti-aircraft batteries are stationed on a school roof or a sniper is positioned in a mosque’s minaret, the protection imparted to the facility by its being a civilian object will be removed, and the attacking party will be allowed to hit it . . . A reverse situation may also occur in which an originally military objective becomes a civilian object, as for instance, a large military base that is converted to a collection point for the wounded, and is thus rendered immune to attack.

However, attacks may not be indiscriminate.

It is ultimately up to the commander to determine the nature of the specific, fluid situation. Everything hinges on his or her intent - not on the judgment of other observers and not on finding out better information in hindsight. As stated by Rüdiger Wolfrum and Dieter Fleck in The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, "The prerequisite for a grave breach (of IHL) is intent; the attack must be intentionally directed at the civilian population or individual civilians, and the intent must embrace physical consequences."

In order to find that the commander has committed a war crime, the bar is set quite high. ICRC commentary on art 85 of the Additional Protocol states:

The accused must have acted consciously and with intent, i.e., with his mind on the act and its consequences, and willing the ("criminal intent" or "malice aforethought"); this encompasses the concepts of "wrongful intent" or "recklessness"....

As long as the IDF did not deliberately attack civilians, and the local commander had a military purpose for each target based on the best information available at the time, there is no violation of the principle of distinction.

Clearly, the observers on the ground and around the world who are looking at the results through the distorted lens of TV cameras cannot possibly know what the intent of the IDF commanders are. They don't know the specific intelligence available, the real-time situation on the ground, the danger to IDF troops or Israeli civilians (in the case of targeting rocket launchers,) the topography of the area (when, for example, the IDF needs to take hgh ground in order to protect its troops) - none of that is available to the armchair analysts who breezily and ignorantly say that IDF actions could amount to war crimes. The bar to determine that is incredibly high, and is not decided by people at Human Rights Watch who change international law at will for their purposes.

The argument that Israel is deliberately attacking civilians has another fatal flaw: if the policy was to attack civilians, then is it difficult to explain how thousands of air strikes and thousands more artillery strikes have killed so few. If the objective is civilian, then there would be tens of thousands of civilian victims. One cannot claim that the IDF is both a uniquely bloodthirsty army using precision weapons to target civilians and at the same time maintain that the IDF is so poor at targeting. Anyone claiming that the IDF is deliberately targeting civilians is either grossly ignorant of how wars are waged, or they are willfully slandering the army.

Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV channel in late July broadcast a Friday sermon in which an imam issued a chilling threat to Jews: “We will not leave a single one of you alive. Our doctrine in fighting you is that we will totally exterminate you. We will not leave a single one of you alive.”

Noam Chomsky, U.S. academic and political activist harshly criticized Israel’s attack on Gaza in the TV show “Democracy Now” Thursday describing it as a hideous sadistic atrocity.

Chomsky who has written extensively on Israel/Palestine conflict described the Israeli blockade on Gaza as:“Another one of the periodic Israeli exercises in what they delicately call 'mowing the lawn.'" - an Israeli military term used to describe Israel's aim in Gaza.

He explained the blockade by Israel limits Palestinian mobilization beyond the border of the territory decided by the Israeli government, and described the offensive as “shooting fish in the pond."

After Israel’s "Operation Cast Lead" in 2008-2009, which killed nearly 1,500 people over a three week period, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in July 2014 launched their latest operation on Gaza from the air and ground which so far killed nearly 2,000 people and injured over 10,000 people, and which drew world-wide protests against Israel.

Despite the protests on the street, Arab governments have come in for much criticism for not backing up Gaza against Israel.Chomsky argued that “Muslim and Arab populations and their governments are strikingly different."

The American Jewish scholar said, “Arab governments are mostly dictatorial, and when you read in the press of Arab support, what is meant is the dictators support us, not the population."

"The population, of course, are quite different. On the eve of the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt, which overthrew the Mubarak dictatorship, there were international polls taken in the United States by the leading polling agencies, and they showed very clearly - I think about 80 percent of Egyptians regarded the main threats to them as being Israel and the United States,” Chomsky said.

Hamas and Israel after attempting three ceasefires with help from Turkey, U.S., Qatar and Egypt, agreed Tuesday on a 72 hour ceasefire, but Hamas stressed they have no interest in extending the ceasefire, arguing that Israel failed to meet its demands on Thursday, but on the other hand, Israel has expressed its readiness to extend the truce under its current terms.

On Friday, Israeli army resumed airstrikes on the Gaza Strip following the expiry of a three-day ceasefire with Palestinian factions. Friday's raids came shortly after Palestinian factions fired a barrage of rockets at Israel following the expiry of an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire. The ceasefire was brokered by Egypt following a month of incessant Israeli strikes against the Gaza Strip that left 1893 Palestinians dead and 9806 others injured. The attacks have also turned thousands of Gaza’s buildings into rubble.

August 7, 2014 | Amid all the horrors unfolding in the latest Israeli offensive in Gaza, Israel’s goal is simple: quiet-for-quiet, a return to the norm.

For the West Bank, the norm is that Israel continues its illegal construction of settlements and infrastructure so that it can integrate into Israel whatever might be of value, meanwhile consigning Palestinians to unviable cantons and subjecting them to repression and violence.

For Gaza, the norm is a miserable existence under a cruel and destructive siege that Israel administers to permit bare survival but nothing more.

The latest Israeli rampage was set off by the brutal murder of three Israeli boys from a settler community in the occupied West Bank. A month before, two Palestinian boys were shot dead in the West Bank city of Ramallah. That elicited little attention, which is understandable, since it is routine.

“The institutionalized disregard for Palestinian life in the West helps explain not only why Palestinians resort to violence,” Middle East analyst Mouin Rabbani reports, “but also Israel’s latest assault on the Gaza Strip.”

In an interview, human rights lawyer Raji Sourani, who has remained in Gaza through years of Israeli brutality and terror, said, “The most common sentence I heard when people began to talk about cease-fire: Everybody says it’s better for all of us to die and not go back to the situation we used to have before this war. We don’t want that again. We have no dignity, no pride; we are just soft targets, and we are very cheap. Either this situation really improves or it is better to just die. I am talking about intellectuals, academics, ordinary people: Everybody is saying that.”

In January 2006, Palestinians committed a major crime: They voted the wrong way in a carefully monitored free election, handing control of Parliament to Hamas.

The media constantly intone that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. In reality, Hamas leaders have repeatedly made it clear that Hamas would accept a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus that has been blocked by the U.S. and Israel for 40 years.

In contrast, Israel is dedicated to the destruction of Palestine, apart from some occasional meaningless words, and is implementing that commitment.

The crime of the Palestinians in January 2006 was punished at once. The U.S. and Israel, with Europe shamefully trailing behind, imposed harsh sanctions on the errant population and Israel stepped up its violence.

The U.S. and Israel quickly initiated plans for a military coup to overthrow the elected government. When Hamas had the effrontery to foil the plans, the Israeli assaults and the siege became far more severe.

There should be no need to review again the dismal record since. The relentless siege and savage attacks are punctuated by episodes of “mowing the lawn,” to borrow Israel’s cheery expression for its periodic exercises in shooting fish in a pond as part of what it calls a “war of defense.”

Once the lawn is mowed and the desperate population seeks to rebuild somehow from the devastation and the murders, there is a cease-fire agreement. The most recent cease-fire was established after Israel’s October 2012 assault, called Operation Pillar of Defense .

Though Israel maintained its siege, Hamas observed the cease-fire, as Israel concedes. Matters changed in April of this year when Fatah and Hamas forged a unity agreement that established a new government of technocrats unaffiliated with either party.

Israel was naturally furious, all the more so when even the Obama administration joined the West in signaling approval. The unity agreement not only undercuts Israel’s claim that it cannot negotiate with a divided Palestine but also threatens the long-term goal of dividing Gaza from the West Bank and pursuing its destructive policies in both regions.

Something had to be done, and an occasion arose on June 12, when the three Israeli boys were murdered in the West Bank. Early on, the Netanyahu government knew that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie.

One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.”

The 18-day rampage after the kidnapping, however, succeeded in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members on July 7.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.

By July 31, around 1,400 Palestinians had been killed, mostly civilians, including hundreds of women and children. And three Israeli civilians. Large areas of Gaza had been turned into rubble. Four hospitals had been attacked, each another war crime.

Israeli officials laud the humanity of what it calls “the most moral army in the world,” which informs residents that their homes will be bombed. The practice is “sadism, sanctimoniously disguising itself as mercy,” in the words of Israeli journalist Amira Hass: “A recorded message demanding hundreds of thousands of people leave their already targeted homes, for another place, equally dangerous, 10 kilometers away.”

In fact, there is no place in the prison of Gaza safe from Israeli sadism, which may even exceed the terrible crimes of Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009.

The hideous revelations elicited the usual reaction from the most moral president in the world, Barack Obama: great sympathy for Israelis, bitter condemnation of Hamas and calls for moderation on both sides.

When the current attacks are called off, Israel hopes to be free to pursue its criminal policies in the occupied territories without interference, and with the U.S. support it has enjoyed in the past.

Gazans will be free to return to the norm in their Israeli-run prison, while in the West Bank, Palestinians can watch in peace as Israel dismantles what remains of their possessions.

That is the likely outcome if the U.S. maintains its decisive and virtually unilateral support for Israeli crimes and its rejection of the long-standing international consensus on diplomatic settlement. But the future will be quite different if the U.S. withdraws that support.

In that case it would be possible to move toward the “enduring solution” in Gaza that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called for, eliciting hysterical condemnation in Israel because the phrase could be interpreted as calling for an end to Israel’s siege and regular attacks. And — horror of horrors — the phrase might even be interpreted as calling for implementation of international law in the rest of the occupied territories.

Forty years ago Israel made the fateful decision to choose expansion over security, rejecting a full peace treaty offered by Egypt in return for evacuation from the occupied Egyptian Sinai, where Israel was initiating extensive settlement and development projects. Israel has adhered to that policy ever since.

If the U.S. decided to join the world, the impact would be great. Over and over, Israel has abandoned cherished plans when Washington has so demanded. Such are the relations of power between them.

Furthermore, Israel by now has little recourse, after having adopted policies that turned it from a country that was greatly admired to one that is feared and despised, policies it is pursuing with blind determination today in its march toward moral deterioration and possible ultimate destruction.

Could U.S. policy change? It’s not impossible. Public opinion has shifted considerably in recent years, particularly among the young, and it cannot be completely ignored.

For some years there has been a good basis for public demands that Washington observe its own laws and cut off military aid to Israel. U.S. law requires that “no security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

Israel most certainly is guilty of this consistent pattern, and has been for many years.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, author of this provision of the law, has brought up its potential applicability to Israel in specific cases, and with a well-conducted educational, organizational and activist effort such initiatives could be pursued successively.

That could have a very significant impact in itself, while also providing a springboard for further actions to compel Washington to become part of “the international community” and to observe international law and norms.

Nothing could be more significant for the tragic Palestinian victims of many years of violence and repression.

Noam Chomsky is emeritus professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Mass.

... Something had to be done, and an occasion arose on June 12, when the three Israeli boys were murdered in the West Bank. Early on, the Netanyahu government knew that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie.

One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.”

The 18-day rampage after the kidnapping, however, succeeded in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members on July 7.

Prior to the Israeli assault, it was obvious that Netanyahu was provoking a war against Gaza. I did several posts as it was so obvious that the always perfidious Netanyahu meant to take advantage of events going on outside Israel.

This is far from done. I doubt Israel under Netanyahu will get away with it. At a minimum, the Israeli government has done a grave injustice to the Palestinians and more people inside Israel and certainly outside of Israel know it.

There is a lot of discussion, again, about the Palestinians accepting the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and pursuing war crimes charges against Israelis. The Palestinian Authority obviously has some good lawyers, because it has not heeded the siren song of the human rights groups goading it to sign the Rome Treaty.

Aside from potential war crimes cases against Palestinians, which I do not think worries them too much (I suspect they are skeptical about enforcement) there is the scarier possibility for the them: that the Court would find it has no jurisdiction. Then the Palestinian’s diplomatic nuclear bomb would turn out to be a dud. I’ve written about some of the serious problems with ICC jurisdiction over Israeli settlements before. In a post at OpinioJuris yesterday, I point to a more fundamental problem the Palestinians face in accepting jurisdiction (see original for links):

Effective Control and Accepting ICC Jurisdiction

A recent and little-noticed development at the ICC suggests the Palestinian Authority may have a harder time getting the Court to accept its accession than many previously thought. A few months ago, in a situation quite analogous to the Palestinians’, the Court rejected an attempted accession.

Recall that the ICC rejected a 2009 Palestinian attempt to invoke its jurisdiction by saying that it lacked the competence to determine if Palestine was a “state” under international law. A main motive for the last year’s General Assembly’s vote to treat Palestine as a non-member state was to bolster its case for ICC membership. The idea was that the OTP would look only to the formal, “political” action of the General Assembly, rather the the objective factors of whether Palestine satisfies the criteria of statehood, such as whether they control their own territory.

Whether that is true or not, recent developments show that even if the OTP accepts that Palestine is a state – ignoring objective tests – it would conclude that the PA cannot accept jurisdiction on behalf of that state, certainly not for Gaza. In May, the OTP just rejected an attempt by Mohammed Morsi, the first democratically elected president of Egypt, to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction over his country under article 12(3). The OTP concluded that when Morsi filed the declaration last December, he was no longer the head of state for Egypt.

Crucially, the OTP used a combination of two distinct tests for the legitimate government of a country for purposes of accepting jurisdiction. The first was a “political” test, referring to the views of the UN, the Rome Statute’s depository. The UN recognizes the Sisi-installed government, that came to power in a coup against Morsi last year. So far, so good for the PA: the U.N. recognizes Abbas as the head of state of Palestine. However, the OTP did not stop there.

It went on to apply an additional, objective test – whether Morsi had “effective control” of Egypt at the time of the application. Finding that he did not, it concluded he could not accept jurisdiction on behalf of the country. This is particularly notable because Morsi was removed in a violent coup, followed by severe repression. Thus the OTP’s action could be seen as at odds with some vague notion of the “grand purpose” of Court: ICC jurisdiction might be most needed when democratically-elected governments are ousted in a military putsch. But the Prosecutor wisely ignored common arguments that the Court should at every turn interpret its jurisdiction broadly because its purpose is to do good, and thus the more jurisdiction, the better.

Now lets apply the “effective control” test to PA. Hamas came to power in coup against Abbas’s government, and since the “statehood” of Palestine, the latter has never exercise “effective control” over the area. Indeed, the Hamas authorities in Gaza, such as Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, dispute Abbas’s standing as president. Indeed, “effective control” is a double-edged sword for Abbas. On the one hand, his lack of it would bar accepting ICC jurisdiction. On the other hand, his lack of it is also what prevents him from being held responsible for the war crimes there. If he does control the territory, and has allowed it to be a rocket launching base for years, he would be in trouble.

Then there is a bigger question: can either Abbas or Hanniyeh claim to have effective control? In the view of much of the international community, all of the West Bank and Gaza is occupied by Israel. The defining feature of occupation is “effective control” by the occupying power. It means that the occupying power is the real power on the ground – which is why it is required to maintain law and order, administer government and so forth. Given that Israel is thought to exercise effective control, it is hard to see how either of the rival Palestinian leader could claim this, except through the unusual arrangement of condominium).One might say, that’s not fair! Palestine cannot join the ICC because it’s occupied? But don’t occupied countries need the ICC the most? But this is just a rehash of the coup argument. While military junta countries and occupied countries may need the ICC more, this is just an argument for countries joining the Rome Treaty early, before they need it.Of course, “the State of Palestine” is an odd duck, because in any other situation, international law clearly says one cannot become a new state while occupied; being a state has objective requirements like effective control that occupation negates. In its explanation of its action on Egypt, the OTP explained:It would it be consistent with the “effective control” test to have one putative authority exercising effective control over the territory of a State, and the other competing authority retaining international treaty-making capacity.That would be precisely the situation that would arise between the Hanniyeh and Abbas regimes regarding Gaza, and between the PA and Israel regarding the West Bank and Gaza. For a while, the Palestinians have managed to uniquely claim to best of both worlds, claiming to be an occupied territory while at the same time claiming to have emerged as a genuine new state with a real government that runs its affairs, but yet still being occupied.The Morsi precedent suggests that even if the Palestinians are allowed to hold both ends of the stick on the “statehood” question, they will be frustrated on the government question. And they will have their old ally, Egypt, to thank.

The results from a recent focus group and polls indicate that the gap is growing between Congress and young Americans regarding support for Israel, JTA notes in an extensive analysis of recent polling data

Polls that were conducted in late July by Gallup and the Pew Research Center found that support for Israel is weaker among younger Americans and Democrats than among Americans overall. .

Moreover, the results of a recent focus group culled from 12 congressional staffers — a small but very influential group — has pro-Israel activists worried about the long-term sustainability of widespread United States support for Israel in Congress.

Last Friday, a select group of Jewish institutions received a confidential summary of the staffers holding a discussion about the recent Gaza conflict. The tone of the summary, which was obtained by JTA, was clearly one of alarm. “Congress is supposed to be our fortress,” wrote authors Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi and Meagan Buren, who are the founder and a former top aide, respectively, at The Israel Project. “While Israel faces Hamas tunnels, it appears that the negativity and lack of support among young people is tunneling its way into congressional offices, even while the congressmen and senators remain steadfast on the surface.” Among the statements that the group of a dozen congressional staffers agreed on: “Israel attacked Gaza in a wild overreaction.” “It’s Groundhog Day every 18 months, perennial conflict, doesn’t seem like anyone wants peace anymore.” [The Israeli government is] “not peace loving.”

A number of JTA interviews with staffers for pro-Israel legislators suggested that the Mizrahi report’s conclusion is correct. “On the Hill and with some people with whom I have spoken who are robust Israel supporters, people are concerned if not angry,” one of the staffers, a Democrat, related to the JTA. The staff members cited a combination of factors that have caused alienation within the once solid pro-Israel base among Democrats, including the time distance from Israel’s era of crises in the 1960s and 1970s, anger at how the Netanyahu government has handled its relationship with the Obama administration, weariness arising from a decade of U.S. involvement in wars and the plain contradictory attitude of many younger people.

The mask of "anti-zionism" has been dropped and pure and out and out Jew hatred is raging across the globe, Jews in Paris have nothing to do with Israel and yet? arabs and moslems rage across the globe against Jews.

the reaction within the Jewish community?

Those that hold any debate or doubts about Israel's right to fight Hamas is shrinking like butter in the sun...

Support for Israel grows with each and every day... ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah all prove Israel's case on an hourly basis.

The Boston bombings, Madrid Bombings, Nigerian School Girl Kidnapping, Palestinian terrorism from murdering a Bobbie Kennedy to the Munich Olympics and thousands and thousands of other moslem terror acts are inside the brains of MOST Americans and their leaders...

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda. “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

On July 28, Hamas security placed Lashin under "house arrest" - and shot him in the legs in order to keep him in his house.

We know Hamas has shot some suspected "collaborators" in the legs for their "house arrest." But Lashin does not appear to be a collaborator, he has extensive anti-Israel material on his Facebook page yet is not pro-Hamas.

One of his Fatah friends expressed frustration that Hamas and Islamic Jihad were not including Fatah in their strategy sessions during the war, even though Fatah has taken credit for hundreds of rockets towards Israel.

Hamas used the war as cover to go after its political enemies. Knowing that Israel would give warnings to people to leave their houses, they used the excuse of "house arrest" and collaboration to enforce their desire to keep Fatah members in their houses, to be killed. This way they achieve two goals: indirectly killing their enemies and being able to blame Israel for killing Gazans who were unable to leave their homes!

The Western media is utterly silent about the level of depravity of Hamas in Gaza.

Two people were injured in a barrage of 57 rockets fired by Hamas by Friday night – one a soldier and the Director of Sapir College, Dr. Nahmi Paz, 71, outside a Shearei Hanegev village. At exactly 8 a.m. Friday morning, the Palestinians renewed rocket fire against the Israeli population after a 72-hour pause which Hamas refused to extend. Twenty rockets were fired against Ashkelon and communities north and east of Gaza before 10 a.m.

Shit happens in war. People die. Both sides will make excuses for their actions and make accusations against the other side. It's to be expected. Only a fool or a partisan would think their side wasn't indulging in the same propaganda.

In war, every person's death is a tragedy but it is not a surprise.

If the issue is presented to the ICC, I would think the court would assign blame (that is after all their raison d'etre) and IMO opinion would likely find both sides guilty of something. In that case, both sides will fall back on the same old arguments and it will accomplish nothing, that is, unless specific names are involved in which case it might involve some inconvenience for those individuals with regard to international travel, etc.

I would imagine Abbas knows this. I suspect he is using the current war as excuse to get Hamas and IJ to sign on to join the Court. However, I suspect his bigger plan is to eventually bring charges against Israel related to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The issue has been batted around for 45 years with the usual kabuki, delays, and obfuscation. Depending on what the court rules, either the kabuki continues or political pressure may force Israel to shit or get off the pot, that is, to negotiate towards a peace settlement or admit that there will never be one.

political pressure may force Israel to shit or get off the pot, that is, to negotiate towards a peace settlement or admit that there will never be one.

The pot has been shit in. The Palestinians have rejected offers numerous times, and regardless of motivation, the Palestinians have gone around the process and sought it's recognition from outside bodies. (UN)

Abbas's joining with Hamas was a public declaration of his intent. Palestine without Israel's approval. Palestine with Hamas as a partner without Israel's approval.

So the Palestinian got what they seek. But now? Don't expect Israel's blessing, in fact? Expect more war.

The nation of "Palestine" is not a real nation in any sense. It may wish to have a nation, it may want to be a nation but it's like a fat man declaring to be thin..

Declaring it don't make it so, dieting and exercise does.

The PA has failed to hold elections on a regular basis. Does not control it's borders. Does not fit the typical definition of a nation.

The PA ended the "peace process" because it deemed it was not the path to independence.

The Palestinians do not want "peace" they want success, and success means the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.

It's their right to want that and it's Israel's right to do everything it can to prevent it...

Farmer RobSat Aug 09, 10:22:00 AM EDTThe Zionist started the war with a unilateral decision to declare themselves a state, in 1948.In violation of UN Resolution 181That is the reality.

Silly man

On Saturday morning, 29 November 1947, and against the will of the Palestinian people, the General Assembly in New York voted for the partition of Palestine and accepted Resolution 181. It was supported by 33 votes with 13 opposed and 10 abstentions including Britain, whose prime minister Clement Attlee saw to it that Britain's Commonwealth partners voted for it.

The General Assembly passed on 29NOV1947 - Reslution 181, which RECOMMENDED that the ...

Recommends to the United Kingdom, as the mandatory Power for Palestine, and to all other Members of the United Nations the adoption and implementation, with regard to the future Government of Palestine, of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union set out below;

Requests that

The Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation;

The Security Council consider, if circumstances during the transitional period require such consideration, whether the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace. If it decides that such a threat exists, and in order to maintain international peace and security, the Security Council should supplement the authorization of the General Assembly by taking measures, under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter, to empower the United Nations Commission, as provided in this resolution, to exercise in Palestine the functions which are assigned to it by this resolution;

The Security Council determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution;

The Trusteeship Council be informed of the responsibilities envisaged for it in this plan;Calls upon the inhabitants of Palestine to take such steps as may be necessary on their part to put this plan into effect;Appeals to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations, and

Authorizes the Secretary-General to reimburse travel and subsistence expenses of the members of the Commission referred to in Part 1, Section B, Paragraph I below, on such basis and in such form as he may determine most appropriate in the circumstances, and to provide the Commission with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the Commission by the General Assembly.

The "Plan" was never voted upon, by the Security Council, and the inhabitants of the area did not sign on, either.The Resolution was ignored by all the parties. The Israeli UNILATERALLY declared an independent state on 15MAY1948Seems that no one accepted Resolution 181, concurrent to its passage, the Plan was never implemented..

All background to the ongoing conflict but it had little to do with starting the current battle. The kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli youths (a police matter) hit all the headlines but the real precipitation of the current battle lies in the reconciliation agreement between the PA and Hamas and Bibi's overreaction to it.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda. “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

And who has more legitimacy when speaking of Israeli ethnic cleansing of Palestine, a fictional character or David Ben-Gurion?

Regarding the Galilee, Mr. [Moshe] Sharett already told you that about 100,000 Arabs still now live in the pocket of Galilee. Let us assume that a war breaks out. Then we will be able to cleanse the entire area of Central Galilee, including all its refugees, in one stroke.

In this context let me mention some mediators who offered to give us the Galilee without war. What they meant was the populated Galilee. They didn’t offer us the empty Galilee, which we could have only by means of a war. Therefore if a war is extended to cover the whole of Palestine, our greatest gain will be the Galilee.

It is because without any special military effort which might imperil other fronts,only by using the troops already assigned for the task, we could accomplish our aim of cleansing the Galilee.

From a protocol of the Government of Israel, translated from Hebrew by Israel Shahak, in "Truth or Myth about Israel? Read between Quotation Marks" by Charley Reese in The Orlando Sentinel (13 June 1999); later published as "What Israeli Historians Say About 1948 Ethnic Cleansing" in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (September 1999)

Referring to Palestinian refugees: "We must do everything in our power to ensure that they never return." • Address at the Mapai Political Committee (7 June 1938) as quoted in Feuerlicht, Roberta, 1983.

• From Jewish terrorism against Arabs it is a short step to Jewish terrorism against Jews. ○ "On three fronts" (3 August 1938) as quoted in Rebirth and Destiny of Israel, New York: Philosophical Library, 1954, p. 91.

Perhaps, it was a poor word choice. Maybe a more accurate statement would have been, "The kidnapping and murder of the three Israeli youths (a police matter) hit all the headlines but the real issue precipitating the current battle lies in the reconciliation agreement between the PA and Hamas and Bibi's 'duplicity' in reacting to it.'

I have laid out Bibi's action in response to the PA/Hamas agreement a number of times before and there is no point in repeating them.

“But there is a political liability which I think is something that we fail to look at because too often there is so much blowback from our intervention in areas that we shouldn’t be involved in. You know, Hamas, if you look at the history, you will find that Hamas was encouraged and actually started by Israel because they wanted Hamas to counteract Yasir Arafat.”

“You say, well yeah, it was better then and served its purpose, but we didn’t want Hamas to do this. So then we, as Americans, say, Well, we have such a good system; we’re going to impose this on the world. We’re going to invade Iraq and teach people how to be democrats. We want free elections. So we encouraged the Palestinians to have a free election. They do, and they elect Hamas.”

“So we first, indirectly and directly through Israel, helped establish Hamas. Then we have an election where Hamas becomes dominant, then we have to kill them. You know, it just doesn’t make sense. During the 1980s, we were allied with Osama bin Laden and we were contending with the Soviets. It was at that time our CIA thought it was good if we radicalize the Muslim world. So we finance the Madrassas school to radicalize the Muslims in order to compete with the Soviets.”

You have no clue about what Chomsky said about the Khmer Rouge . He did a paper which challenged the numbers because so many people were killed in B52 raids and we're being added to the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge. Read the entire paper instead of chasing the stick like a lobotomized drooling old sheep dog.

On the upside of things, my niece is doing wonderfully well. I could hear it in her voice immediately. She is over the past, and going forward. She is dating, studying, working, doing all the things that make one happy when young !! She is happy, finally !!!

On the panoply of vodka brands. Colorful but unimpressive. I enjoy a lot of premium brands when it comes to the various types of booze. However, vodka is nice and simple. I've tried a number of premium brands and I have heard that some of the newer (and more expensive) brands are 'unique'; however, for a nice cool drink with all the elements you need for vodka, the simplicity of Smirnoff is good enough for me.

Iraqi Kurdish security forces have opened a road to Sinjar Mountain in northwestern Iraq, rescuing more than 5,000 Yazidis trapped there after running away from fighters from the Islamic State (IS) group, a Kurdish army spokesman has told Al Jazeera.

"I can confirm that we succeeded in reaching the mountains and opening a road for the refugees," said Halgord Hikmet, a spokesman for the peshmergas the Kurdish security forces.

Hikmet said that recent airstrikes on the IS targets by US warplanes had allowed the peshmergas to open a route to the mountain.

The IS, which has captured large areas of Syria and Iraq, see Shia Muslims and minorities such as Christians and Yazidis, a Kurdish ethno-religious community, as infidels.

The Yazidis, a minority that follow a 4,000-year-old faith, had taken cover in Sinjar Mountain for the past five days in searing heat, and with no supplies, after fleeing advancing . . . . . . .

Hamas is a terrorist organization. It's what they do and it is unconscionable.

However, Israeli paramilitary groups did the same thing during their march to statehood. Eventually, at least one of the 'freedom fighters' became prime minister.

Quirk, please show me any example of Israel's paramilitary organizations receiving in today's dollars billion to invest in tunnels, rockets, pro form kidnapping and murder and launching/provoking 3 wars in 10 years.

Now you can claim, fairly, that there were acts of terror by jewish groups during the run up to statehood, but you'd also have to admit they were not mainstream and accepted as SOP.

Within the last two weeks I posted a number of links describing the actions of Israeli paramilitary groups from the 1920's through the 1950's. I'm sure you saw them. If not, look it up in Wiki.

Quirk, please show me any example of Israel's paramilitary organizations receiving in today's dollars billion to invest in tunnels, rockets, pro form kidnapping and murder and launching/provoking 3 wars in 10 years.

What has this got to do with the subject at hand? My response was to your post. Your post talked of an egregious act on the part of Hamas. My response which you partially posted included the following:

It is a little hypocritical to argue that was then and this is now.

IMO of course.

My point if it wasn't clear was that Israel has in the past been known to take out a 'collaborator' or two. And as we have seen by Bibi's actions leading up to the attack on Gaza, he has no compunction about attacking his political enemies in this case Hamas leadership.

DR: In the first instance, there was also a recognition that there were stabilizing factors in the region and that we didn’t want to risk disturbing those stabilizing factors. So, for example, maintaining Saddam in the place precluded some other issues and counterbalanced the Iranians.

ZB: Yes, and he hated al Qaida, for example. He was a vigorous opponent of it.

DR: So now you’re saying that we’re starting to reap the whirlwind associated with the invasion of Iraq. And in pulling out of Afghanistan, we are almost certain to find opening the door to the Taliban a destabilizing force there. And if we push too hard on democracy in Egypt, we may find ourselves supporting destabilizing forces there as we did when some in the administration seemed to embrace (Mohammed) Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood too quickly and too tenaciously. We went into Libya without a long-term plan, unleashing destabilizing forces there. We failed to take decisive action in Syria, and as a consequence of that and the situation in Iraq, the destabilization in Syria has spread. Risks are everywhere and the world’s major stabilizing powers — the United States, the EU and the Chinese — have an appetite for constructive intervention in very few of these situations. Do you see us entering a period where we place a new premium on supporting stability, even if it’s not optimal from a political perspective or a democratic perspective? An approach for which there’s plenty of precedent in American foreign policy.

ZB: Well, I think we’re doing that in part already, for example in Egypt. If one looks at the choices — and my strong preferences are dictated primarily by democratic imperatives — well, obviously we should be for the Muslim Brotherhood. Instead, I think with some reluctance we are settling for supporting the Army in the hope that the Army will consolidate the state and eventually evolve somewhat like Turkey. It’s probably a better bet.

But in the larger sense, what I would say is this:I think the whole region now, in terms of the sectarian impulses and sectarian intolerance, is not a place in which America ought to try to be preeminent. I think we ought to pursue a policy in which we recognize the fact that the problems there are likely to persist and escalate and spread more widely.

The two countries that will be most affected by these developments over time are China and Russia — because of their regional interests, vulnerabilities to terrorism, and strategic interests in global energy markets. And therefore it should be in their interest to work with us also, and we should be willing to play with them, but not assume sole responsibility for managing a region that we can neither control nor comprehend.

So look for the US to support the military in Iraq, to work through the military in Iraq, which is who the U spent the most time with, training and influencing, during the US occupation of that country. Does the US wish to see a change of civilian leadership? Without a doubt, and if there was a coup de etat, US support of the "New" government would not be out of the question

Zbigniew Brzezinski went out to a California, and plucked a seeming nonentity, whose only claim to fame was that his mother had worked for a couple of organizations that were later disclosed as being CIA fronts, out of a small college in Los Angeles, and brought him back-East to Columbia, and then Harvard Law. The "financing" was as murky as said matriculator's mother's employment record (rumored to include sizable amounts of Saudi money, for ex.)

Other serious money appeared along the way; the latest from a Mr. Lester Crown.

If there was ever a "born and bred" CIA, TLC, CFR President, this would be the one. A lot of people read his books, but I would rather read the one (that will never be written) about his mother.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.